If You Cut Us, Do We Not Bleed?

Lest we get too caught up in the joy and concern wrought by events in Egypt, we should not forget to pay attention to what’s happening at home. For those of us who care about American democracy, the budget cuts currently proposed by the Republicans should give us serious pause.

A recent fundraising plea from Planned Parenthood advises us: “The attacks on women's health have already begun. Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) has introduced legislation that would take away insurance coverage for abortion from millions of women. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has pledged to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, removing federal dollars for family planning, contraception and basic preventive care. And in state after state, newly elected governors and legislatures are pursuing a dangerous anti-choice agenda that threatens to turn back the clock on reproductive rights.”

Yesterday, as Egyptians celebrated what they hope will be new freedom in their country, ours attempted to take a step back as Republicans rolled out “historic cuts in federal spending.” The newly empowered Conservatives are demanding that Congress cut $100 billion from the nation’s current budget – without even waiting to see what President Obama proposes. Because what they want to do is what they’ve always wanted: to disempower women and, as reported in yesterday’s New York Times: “Republicans take aim at some of their favorite targets in the measure, reducing financing to the Environmental Protection Agency by $3 billion — an almost 30 percent cut from current levels. The measure would also block the agency from implementing new emissions regulations, and it would cut more than $100 million in spending on climate change programs. Housing, energy and transportation spending is also trimmed substantially. Dozens of programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, are eliminated.”

Naturally, the Republicans are leaving Defense off the chopping block, because there’s absolutely nothing in the Defense budget that could be vastly improved by reduction, reallocation, or an examination of fraud, waste and mismanagement. Instead, as usual, the Republicans are looking at things – like public housing, health care and the arts – that have a direct impact on the lives of ordinary people, rather than challenging the stupidities of the Republican status quo. They are sincerely trying to fulfill their “Pledge to America,” as stated during the November, 2010 election. If we want to foster the real, more compassionate, and more sensible changes proposed by President Obama during the 2008 election, we can’t afford to be passive. Our rights, privileges and the best of American society depend on our speaking out.

Indeed, if ever there was a time to write to your Congressional representative, especially if he or she is a Republican, it’s now. There’s going to be a battle about this plan and the opportunity for line-item vetoes by the President may again be an option. But public opinion must be heard, and loudly, for harmful, people-hurting cuts to be avoided or opposed. Our phones and our email are our Tahrir Square. May we assemble quickly, because the votes will be taken next week!

Racial vs Racist

There’s nothing like getting your blood boiling first thing in the morning and thanks to yesterday’s news about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “racist” remark – as revealed in the new book Game Change by Mark Halperin & John Heilemann (a critique of the 2008 campaign – I was seething well before 12:00 noon.

As you've no doubt heard by now, the book claims: “He [Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one’.”

Naturally, Reid is now back-peddling in response to the heat generated by his comment, apologizing to the nation and the president personally; the Democrats have chided but absolved him; and the Republicans, ever alert to an opportunity to make themselves look good in comparison to the Dems, are calling for Reid’s head on a political platter.

This situation is both the height of stupidity and a sobering reminder that because we still haven’t dealt squarely with the issue of race in America, coming to grips with the history and nuances of racism, we’re literally unable to tell the difference between a remark about race vs a racist remark. They’re not the same thing. And when the media and politicians use every instance of racial observation to stir the pot and make trouble where none exists, it only serves to take us further away from understanding and confronting the truth.

Racism in America in regard to African-Americans is and always has been about color, and can both fairly and simply be defined as a generally-accepted idea that lighter is better than darker. This was true during Slavery, when light-skinned (biracial) blacks were given [relatively] special treatment, ergo “house Negroes” vs “field Negroes” (lights got to work in the house while darks toiled in the fields). After the Civil War and ever since, even, to some extent, in the present, abused blacks bought into this maxi-racist distinction, as well.

Any black person over the age of 40 knows about the old “paper bag test”: blacks believed that if they were darker than a brown paper bag, they were too dark. There is a long history of antipathy between light- and dark-skinned blacks, with the lights genuinely discriminating against the darks. Light-skinned parents didn’t want their light-skinned children to marry dark-skinned blacks, etc. This was an issue that Spike Lee tackled in his film School Daze, about the rivalry between two sororities on a black college campus, one made up of light-skinned girls, the other dark. It was one of Lee’s least successful and popular films, because white people didn’t get it and blacks didn’t want to cop to it. All puns intended, it got very mixed reviews.

This attitude among African-Americans took a brief hiatus during the post-Martin Luther King Jr. Black Power movement, when dark-skinned blacks shunned the light-skinned for not being black enough. But as Black Power got beaten down, some of the old attitudes returned – and never left. As far as white people are concerned, studies and experience have demonstrated over the decades that whites are more comfortable with, feel less threatened by, light-skinned blacks. Indeed, until the last 15 years or so, one rarely saw a black newscaster who was not light-skinned and they still remain the majority. And not until Sidney Poitier made an inroad in film did darker-skinned blacks have a respectable place in the movies, relegated to playing servants, pimps, whores, and other racial stereotypes. Again, this is still true to a discouraging extent. In every area of American society, light-skinned blacks have had a relatively easier time of it: in employment, education, housing, and integrated social interaction.

What Harry Reid voiced was a political reality. He wasn’t celebrating or condoning it, he was simply recognizing a racial truth: America was more likely to accept a black presidential candidate who didn’t look or sound too black. And he was absolutely right. Jesse Jackson’s presidential ambitions failed for many reasons, but not the least of them is that he comes off (especially sounds) too black. Who was the first black person Americans (white and black) were willing to consider for president: Gen. Colin Powell! Need I say more? There’s no doubt in my mind that if Barack Obama had the hue of a Sidney Poitier and the voice of a Jesse Jackson, we would now have either President Hillary Clinton or President John McCain.

As an extremely light-skinned biracial person myself, I know the truth of this much-hidden and little-understood dimension of racism. When I was in high school during the height of the Black Power movement, I was aggressively put down by the local Black Panthers – who later invited me to join what they called their Fifth Column: blacks who could pass for white (and therefore be useful as spies, infiltrators, etc.). I passed – on their offer.

America still has a lot of work to do in dealing with its racist past and present. And making a political boogeyman out of Harry Reid is not only not part of the solution, it only serves to highlight the problem. Until we learn to make the important distinction between racial and racist, we’ll never be able to get past the imposing racial barriers that make meaningful dialogue impossible, and which ultimately damage us all.

(A version of this article appeared on Blogcritics yesterday.)

Barack Obama: The Vacillation of Now

As I write this, it’s nearly midnight on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, the end of a day during which elections were held in several states around America (including New York, New Jersey and Virginia), largely for governors and mayors and other local officials, an off-year election – not to be confused with mid-term races held half-way through a President’s term and, as a rule, it’s senators and Congressional representatives whose careers are on the line.

In today’s elections, the Democrats won some, the Republicans won some, and the media and press pundits are already blathering about what it all means: was this a referendum on President Obama and is he winning or losing?, what does this posit for 2010 and 2012?, all the political horse race shit that has nothing to do with people’s real lives, and which, for decades, has pushed millions out of the arena of civic and political concern.

But tonight was also the debut of HBO’s new documentary, By the People: The Election of Barack Obama, about his historic campaign for the presidency and his election as the first African-American President in 2008. Although, I’m sad to say, it doesn’t tell us anything about him that we don’t already know, it is a well-crafted, important reminder of the sense of energy, faith, optimism, racial dignity, Liberal decency, and immeasurable enthusiasm that accompanied Obama’s campaign and its milestone victory.

With a combination of old-school, beat-the-bushes campaigning and an unprecedentedly sophisticated use of new and established media, Barack Obama succeeded in bringing millions of previously disenchanted, disinterested youth into the political fold, and he gave aging Lefties a sense of we-the-people-déjà vu that we had long ago stopped waiting for.

Of course, the campaign nearly exploded the heads of numerous Republicans, Conservatives, and Vehemently White Americans (you’ll notice I didn’t say racist, because heaven forbid that I or anyone should imply that race was an issue in the campaign and continues to be an issue in Mr. Obama’s presidency…). But Obama’s campaign battle cries: “Change You Can Believe In,” “Yes We Can,” “The Audacity of Hope,” “We Are the Ones We’ve Been Waiting For” and, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., “The Urgency of Now,” drowned out the Doubting Bubbas, as well as the frightened, the reserved, the complacent. He won. And those of us who supported him believed that he and we would change the world. So how did we go from “hepped up and ready to go” to hemmed in and not doing much?

Before I say any more, I want to state that right up until Hillary Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination to Obama and gave him her full-throated support, she was my candidate. I didn’t adore her. She didn’t inspire me. I believed she was a true politician (with many of the negative implications that word often carries) who knew how to play with the Big Boys on their turf and give them a run for their money. I believed her balls were as big as theirs, and that her moxie, that “woman element” which set her apart from the pack, added the thrill of another kind of history-making election to what was an essentially pragmatic choice.

I didn’t want to believe in Barack Obama. I had had my political heart broken too many times already. I didn’t want to hope, didn’t want to join The Movement, didn’t want to drink the joy-laced kool aid. I felt I knew what I could expect from Hillary: competent governance, follow-through on a few core issues, a particular dedication to women’s rights, and the frequently-sage private counsel of her husband, the former President.

But it wasn’t to be. Because a huge population of disparate people, many of them leading hard lives, believed they had found a man who could and would change the world – for the radically, differently better. And in the time between the Democratic Convention and Election Day, I found myself caught up in the hope and excitement. Even when the greedy cowards of Wall Street and the financial industry sent the country (and much of the world) tumbling down the economic rabbit hole, I kept faith with Obama.

He was cool. He was commanding. He seemed ready, willing and able to take on awesome problems that hadn’t even been on the table until the last days of the campaign. I thought he was trying to make peace with an intractable enemy and that this was a good thing. I thought he was getting a raw, hateful deal from the opposition. I thought the President was splendid during his first 100 days, and I still had hope. And I thought a lot of his problems were coming from the Democrats, who were (and still are) doing an unfortunately effective imitation of Monty Python’s “Ministry of Silly Walks.”

But now it’s a year since the election and just a few months short of that since Obama took office. And while I like some of the things he’s said and done, I’m rocked and shocked by his overall performance and stunned that nobody around him seems to be reminding him that when you’ve got the power you should USE IT!

Former President Lyndon Johnson, who, it turns out, was one of the best, most innovative and truly socially-caring presidents of the 20th century along with FDR, was completely tainted by the Vietnam War, which basically killed Johnson’s Great Society along with hundreds of thousands of people. I fear Afghanistan can do the same thing to Obama – except that what Obama’s ultimate legacy will be is now a mondo question mark, because he’s not behaving like the Nouveau President we were sure he would be.

I know the Right genuinely believe he’s a Socialist, but to those of us who thought he would be a come-out-fighting Liberal, he’s behaving like a Centrist wimp. He’s made a mess of health care reform, allowing Congress to craft a sloppy 1,900-page bill that, among other things, betrays women, and which is not likely to provide the service and security we as a nation were promised. I don’t know what the hell he’s doing about the economy except giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Wall Street and the banks) while millions of ordinary people are losing jobs and homes faster than a middle-aged man shedding hair. He’s talked a good game to the LGBT community, but he hasn’t actually done squat.

Indeed, all of the messes and injustices and expenses that Bush left him have only been exacerbated; he can’t control his own party; and he’s spent immeasurable political capital trying to achieve bipartisanship with people who hate him at the expense of real change and genuine relief for the people who still love and support him, even though we’re deeply distraught, confused and disappointed.

As was said about the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz, who was revealed to be a fake, “he’s not a bad man, he’s just a very poor wizard.” Maybe Obama sincerely wanted the change he inspired us to believe in and just doesn’t know how to do it. Maybe he conned us. At this point, we can’t tell. Emotionally, I would prefer incompetence to deception, but only the future will tell.

Mr. President, my advice, my request, my heartfelt plea, is that you stop playing nice and start playing hardball. Use your power, throw your weight around, and force those fractious Dems to get in line. Be a great one-term President rather than a mediocre two-termer. Remember who your friends are. During the campaign, you told us it wasn’t about you, it was about us. Well, now it is about you. So, whataya gonna do about it? And when? Because we really are in the midst of the Urgency of Now.

This article was first published on Blogcritics earlier today.

YAAAAAAAAYYY!!!

Congratulations,

President-Elect

Obama!!!

YES

WE

DID!!!

DO IT NOW!!!

In Conclusion

I can hardly believe that The Campaign Without End will (hopefully) end tomorrow, and I believe it will be a happy ending and we’ll have President Obama replacing President Unforgivable. However, having endured this entire campaign as a concerned and participatory citizen, there are a few things I’d like to say about the electoral process before I return my attention to other matters.

Despite the shortcomings, inequities and peculiarities of this campaign – and there were many – it was a blessing. It inspired America to think and talk about politics again, and brought many new and previously disenfranchised citizens into the political fold. It forced us as a nation to start talking about racism, sexism, and economic disparity, and it put our most pressing national concerns – the economy, education, the Iraq War, oil dependency, the environment, health care, and the Big Three entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) – squarely on the table. Issues such as civil and human rights, Constitutional protections, poverty, drugs, crime, and immigration, among them, got little or no direct attention, but hey, the campaign was only two years long, they couldn’t cover everything. The simple facts of Obama, Clinton, and even Palin, as major candidates, made history; we’ve turned a page and that’s a good thing. And of course, this campaign was the first to reflect the full power of the Internet as a major new medium, one that promoted enormous civic involvement by individuals and permitted the dissemination of much more information than ever before.

That said, it behooves us to acknowledge and discuss now, before we get lost in the happy haze of a new beginning, the problems of the campaign. It was ridiculously, exhaustingly, unproductively too long, and outrageously too expensive. The debates, from the primaries to the final matches in October, were awful; they weren’t debates at all, they were bad press conferences. The campaign also brought into shocking relief just how much politics is a team sport in this country, and to what extent party loyalty impedes truly bipartisan, cooperative governance. It also highlighted the simplistic, narrow vision that many Americans have about their country and themselves; if we keep thinking we’re The Greatest Country in the World, how can we improve and grow?

Media coverage, particularly on TV and in tabloid newspapers, should be roundly chastised for continuing to shape American politics as a horse race, a popularity contest, an opportunity for scandal, and for relentlessly focusing on irrelevant minutia. By the end of this week, they’ll already be discussing, in earnest, the 2012 presidential election, which is a huge public disservice (and should be punishable by death…). Since we as a culture are increasingly driven by information technology, we as a people must start to demand grown-up, nuanced, significant media coverage of all news, especially politics.

And with Election Day now just hours away, it’s time for us to fully consider the value of eliminating the electoral college so that every vote really does count, instead of millions of votes being rendered almost irrelevant, depending on what state one lives and votes in. We also must address the chaotic condition of the voting process, from convoluted registration procedures to dysfunctional voting equipment; The Greatest Country in the World shouldn’t have such a difficult time casting and counting electoral votes.

It is my heartfelt wish that before the next presidential election we can address the many problems just cited. Meanwhile, I’m looking forward to true leadership and responsible, innovative and supportive public policy. We survived this campaign. We’ve earned it.

Lions & Tigers & Bears; Oh, My!

HAPPY

HALLOWEEN,

EVERYBODY

Here's hoping next Tuesday is a real treat!!!

Transformation

I can’t say enough about how impor-tant it is for Amer-icans of all ethnic stripes to remem-ber that Barack Obama is bi-racial. Being bi-racial gives one a very different perspective about race in particular, and dealing with complexities, polarities and convergences, in general. I’m certain that this is part of what Gen. Colin Powell was referring to when he described Obama as a “transformational figure” in his endorsement of the senator today. Unfortunately, this is an intellectual idea and we are living in an era of wholesale ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity. As a result, in all the recent media talk about The Role of Race in the Campaign, there has been little or no discussion about the unique nature of bi-racialism and its role in making Obama who and what he is.

I think this is because our historically racially polarized nation, for all its genuinely forward progress, is still hugely uncomfortable with (and disapproving of) the deeply intimate form of integration that it takes to produce a bi-racial child. There are a lot of people of all races who are not racist in a hateful or discriminatory way, but who are nonetheless opposed to mixed race procreation. I believe this view is often more about the longstanding desire to preserve one’s culture than it is some fascistic devotion to racial purity. In the main, for example, Jews believe in the importance of maintaining Judaism by rejecting the cultural dilution of religious inter-marriage.

It’s also important to remember that America’s history of our own brand of actual fascistic devotion to racial purity evolved from the economic demands of Slavery. Even though countless enslaved Africans were regularly making their tortuous way through the Middle Passage, it was essential that the slave stock be replenished without incurring the costs of new purchases, which is how the One-Drop Rule came about. “All it takes is one little drop of Niggra blood and you’re a, Niggra, too,” wails Elizabeth Taylor in Raintree County as a Civil War-era southern belle who’s losing her mind, because she fears her Mammy is really her Mommy.

And so it goes. Slave owners automatically owned their slaves’ children. And since a considerable number of them were the products of unions between white men and slave women, the One-Drop Rule ensured that the herd would be increased, even if the kid looked white (like me) or very light (like Obama). Out of this was born the ranking of house slaves and field slaves, the former being light skinned (considered more attractive, civilized), the latter dark (those ugly beasts...); and from that came the self-hating hierarchy among slaves themselves that embraced the standard.

These distinctions are not unique to American racism; Apartheid South Africa expressed its version through the categories of blacks, whites, and coloreds, a laundry-based separation that regarded those of mixed race as a separate class, still inferior to whites but to a lesser degree than blacks. Indeed, it is their institutionally racist form of racial distinction that has contributed to our country’s rejection of bi-racial as a legitimate, personal, third category of racial identity, one that has the capacity to enormously enhance one’s ability to be a “uniter,” a transformational figure.

Bi-racial people have always been viewed as race traitors by both races, light enough to often have an easier racial time of it, even sometimes be able to “pass,” and just not-white-enough to be subject to the same laws and most of the same discriminations. Getting past all this confusing shit to a point of understanding, self-acceptance, and a sense of broadly racially inclusive self-identification, is a brain trainer all by itself. If it doesn’t make you crazy, it can make you exceptional.

Bi-racialism is really about racial transcendence, which is a huge part of why Barack Obama symbolizes the future, that day to come when most everyone will be mocha-colored and culturally united by their shared humanity, rather than separated by cultural distinctions which, for all their sentimental appeal, may be obstacles to social transformation. If he wins, Barack Obama will be labeled by history as the first African-American president. If he can lead (“can” in both the sense of permitted and capable) in a truly transformational way, he may emerge as something far more important – and very interesting.

The New Right Stuff

Over the past couple of weeks, in observing the swirl of fright-ening current events and the next-to-final throes of The Campaign Without End, then watching last night’s third and last presidential debate, I’ve found myself reflecting on the nature of intelligence, character and experience, and what exactly it takes to make someone fit to lead. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are smart men. But which of them also has the vision, temperament, and natural talent for leadership that ideally one should have in order to be president?

Since the conventions, both men have had ample opportunity to show their stuff to the people, and they have. McCain has shown that he is old-fashioned and uncreative in his thinking, mean-spirited in his attitudes, loose with the truth, erratic in his behavior, and shockingly self-serving in his ambition as evidenced by his selection of the ignorant and wholly unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate. In reassuring contrast, Obama has exhibited a clear understanding of 21st century realities, innovative ideas, graciousness, civility, straightforwardness, calm under pressure, and a willingness to properly balance personal ambition with a genuine desire for public service.

But even more important, Obama exhibits high levels of “emotional intelligence” and “cultural literacy.” Daniel Goleman’s 1995 bestseller, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, refreshingly introduced the notion that the qualities of social interaction and self-knowledge, including the ability to empathize, delay gratification, and interpret non-verbal social cues, were as essential to personal success as intellectual intelligence. E.D. Hirsch, in his captivating 1987 reference book, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, provided the first volume in a string of revisions over the years that list the facts and ideas related to world history & geography, technology, science, language, the arts, religion, mythology and folklore that someone who regards himself as literate needs to know. One only needs to look at George W. Bush to recognize an essentially homicidal lack of emotional intelligence and cultural literacy. John McCain may not be George Bush - but he, too, lacks these important qualities. (Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is George Bush.)

When McCain talks about “winning” in Iraq, he shows a scary lack of understanding that today’s wars (and tomorrow’s) will not be waged and won in traditional military terms, that today’s enemies are not other nations so much as rogue leaders and cults with zealous determination and considerable technological and financial resources; we need smarts, self-control, diplomacy, and a little sophisticated covert operation to address these dangers. When McCain talks about “spreading the wealth” and “class warfare” in disparaging terms, he reveals a dangerous ignorance of the economic imbalances that threaten our national existence and security. When McCain talks about giving people the “choice” to get the health care they want without government interference, he ignores the fact that most people are trapped in HMOs and other profit-making health service structures that long ago robbed patients of meaningful choices and quality care. When McCain rails against taxes and “big government,” he shows a total lack of understanding of how people need to support a government that really and truly supports them. And when he goes into his anti-abortion spiel, well…

Barack Obama is a young man with young ideas. He understands new media. He connects with young adults. He is dedicated to discussion and diplomacy. He has a personal, spiritual foundation that doesn’t deny scientific fact or attempt to control people’s personal behavior. He believes in both personal responsibility and governmental protections. He understands cultures other than his own. He’s a feminist. He supports affordable, accessible education, public education. He’s not afraid to say “I don’t know” or to take counsel and advice from other smart people. He understands the difference between coming from love or fear, and knows that working from fear is dangerous, not insurance against danger. He’s got a cool head and a warm heart. And he’s got Joe Biden watching his back, instead of Annie Oakley. We need this guy and we need him bad.

Buyer's Remorse - Part I

With current events in America moving at warp speed, it’s difficult to absorb the fact that it was just last Friday (three days ago!) that Congress approved the Bail Out/Rescue bill that designates $700 billion in taxpayer funds for stop-gap investments in private investment banks and other investment companies. Today brought a new onslaught of information: Wall Street still has the “jitters” and dropped 370 points more, because they’re afraid the bail out we were told was the only way to avoid economic disaster may not work. And European and Asian markets tumbled as they contracted the fears of our markets like a virus.

Those with economic savvy are pointing out that the earlier bailout of Lehman Bros., plus the $700 billion just approved, plus an additional $200 billion that will in all likelihood be needed, will actually push us well over the $1 trillion mark faster than you can say “We’ll be paying for George W. Bush for generations to come.” Oh, and incidentally, not so you’d notice in the midst of this disaster, but Congress also gave $25 billion to the Big Three in Detroit last week to help shore up the flagging auto industry.

Before the big bailout became a fait accompli, I received an email with a copy of a letter/petition circulated by more than 100 economists campaigning against the measure and pleading for Congressional hearings and taking the time to review the situation and explore other options. Despite what the public was told, there were other options, and there still are. There is also growing consensus that the bailout cannot work, because it fails to address the root of the problem – the free-falling housing market.

There’s every reason to believe that this crisis was severely misunderstood, poorly and irresponsibly presented, and that the public was fear-mongered by Bush & Co. into thinking this boondoggle was necessary. A lot of folks didn’t buy into it and still don’t, but it doesn’t matter, because both the Senate and the Congress did. It was déjà vu all over again of Bush and his bullshit war campaign over the (actually non-existent) Weapons of Mass Destruction. Instead, the Weapon of Mass Destruction that has most endangered us is our outgoing president. What a surprise.

Everything about this situation is a scandal and a shame of massive proportions. It has been reported that the $700 billion alone could provide health insurance for every man, woman and child in America, and rebuild every crumbling road and bridge. And the next president will be hugely restrained by the wildly increased and already unconscionable national debt enlarged by this maneuver.

What gets me is that both presidential candidates went along with this. Here was a chance for McCain to really behave like a Republican and a maverick and demand that the runaway bailout train be stopped and searched before going any further. But he didn’t. Here was a chance for Obama to behave like a real Democrat and a transformational change agent and …demand that the runaway bailout train be stopped and searched before going any further. But he didn’t either. When the next election comes around, assuming we’re still a voting democracy in 2012, will candidates accuse the incumbent, and each other, of voting for the bail out that sunk us, just as Hillary Clinton was skewered for her initial vote to support Bush’s demand for the Iraq War? She thought she was supporting the commander-in-chief at a moment of crisis. What excuse will either of these men give for their complicity in this insanity?

I do believe Obama/Biden will win out against Sen. McVicious and Gov. Avon Lady. I just hope they’ll be able to do something positive for us all once they get there.

Singin' the Bailout Blues

Every time I think we’ve reached the pinnacle of greed and bald-faced chicanery of the free market in action, a new instance comes along to show me that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Apparently, the Congressional plan to bailout Wall Street has at last been re-worked and is awaiting final votes from our elected leaders to make this unprecedented situation a nightmare reality.

True, no one knows how much of the $700 billion will actually be dispensed to banks and investment companies, and yes, there is a possibility that this rescue measure will actually reap profits for the government before it’s all over and, certainly, anyone who’s been following this confusing and unfathomable story for the last couple of weeks understands that something had to be done to stem the nation’s economic hemorrhage. But I remain unconvinced that this bailout was the only possible answer, even with some sensible precautions/ provisions, which have now been agreed upon – and that don’t go anywhere near far enough.

I am furious, frightened and heartbroken about this turn of events. If, indeed, Barack Obama makes it to the White House, he will absolutely, positively, not be able to do many of the things he wants to do, because the absence of $700 billion in the national coffers, either in cash on hand or by increasing the already obscene deficit, is a deal-breaker, a plan-changer, a dream-stealer of unimaginable proportions. It won’t be about making hard choices, the situation threatens to leave the next President with very few options.

No We Can’t if we’re dead broke or drowning in debt. We can’t fully and properly reform health care and the Medicare/Medicaid systems, shore up Social Security, improve primary education and fund higher education, pioneer innovative energy solutions, overhaul the military and ensure veterans’ full rights, take creative and sensible steps to really increase national security, address poverty and homelessness, advance scientific achievement, re-build the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, build new affordable housing, reform the prison system, fully restore areas devastated by killer storms in recent years, or anything else that urgently needs doing in the public interest.

What I still don’t understand is why there is no legal punishment for the corporate decision-makers who brought us here; for that matter, why there is no punishment for the government agencies that turned a blind eye to the shady dealings of the free market; and why, even with revisions, the bailout plan offers so little relief for average people in this country.

I was raised in the midst of two standards of personal morality, by a mother who spent years and years with individual companies but wouldn’t bring home so much as a ballpoint pen or a legal pad, and by a father who had no trouble “shopping” in Harlem barbershops or near the trucks that merchandise fell off of. Since my mother took care of the family paperwork, we never cheated on our taxes and we paid every bill without fail. It was very important to her that she (and we) behave honorably in all things. I agreed, but I was confused. I still am.

I know virtue is its own reward, but really, where’s the payoff for the 90% of Americans who are not rich by any measure and who take pride in being self reliant? Where is the humane, even generous, assistance, where are the essential rights and privileges? In developed countries around the world, citizens don’t have to worry about the costs of health care or higher education, because they’re covered. Their homes are affordable. Their jobs are far more secure than ours. We ordinary Americans are routinely punished, whether or not we play by the rules – and there are stringent rules for us, while the Masters of the Universe run wild and free. I think it's fair to say that this is the last straw and something good better come out of this bailout, or a lot of nice, honorable Americans are gonna go ballistic.

Unbelievable!

Cancel the debate in the best interest of the nation? John McCain showed his true colors this week - first shielding Miss Congeniality from the Big Bad Press, then behaving like a kid faking a stomach ache the night before a big test at school. His bald-faced self service is breathtaking. He's bullshitting and fear-mongering just like Dubya. They both make me sick.

Obama, on the other hand, was cool, gracious, came across as very presidential, and put McCain in his place when he said the president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. What McCain (and his ignorant sidekick) can't do is lead or grasp complex issues.

Maybe some good can come out of all this fiscal misery and political garbage. Let's say it in unison:

PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!

Straight Talk

Between the hysterical babbling press, the partisan commen-tators, and both presidential candidates walking on eggshells every time they speak, there’s a lot of noise, a lot of emotion, and a positive dearth of clarity. Someone should write a brief, plain-talk, objective, executive summary of the essential policy differences between the presidential candidates. Nobody asked me, but I’d like to take a shot – no revelations, just the basics.

Barack Obama and the Democratic Party believe that government should play an active, positive role in citizens’ lives, providing certain assurances, rights, privileges and benefits that people can count on for the necessities of a decent life. They believe eight years of George W. Bush have nearly destroyed this country. John McCain and the Republican Party believe that government should play a small and limited role in people’s lives and instead allow personal initiative and the activity of a free market in all things to determine what people have. As exemplified by the Republican Convention, McCain and The Republicans say little or nothing about Bush, who is the head of their party as well as the nation.

Obama’s position on the Iraq War is that it has been a dreadful mistake, devastating for this country in its human and financial toll and degraded perceptions of the US around the world. He would seek the soonest-possible responsible exit strategy and literally reinvent US military policy to reflect the new circumstances, alliances and dangers of the 21st century. John McCain believes that the decision to embark on the Iraq War was necessary because he thinks we went there to get the people who attacked us on September 11th. He feels any attempt to end the war without a classic military victory would be a disgrace to America. He believes The Surge has been successful and we should see the war through to its military conclusion, however long it takes and whatever the cost. He thinks anyone opposing his view of the war is being a quitter, unpatriotic, and dishonoring the troops.

Both candidates call for the maintenance of competent, efficient, and productive government operations in all areas, as free as possible from undo bureaucracy, mismanagement, fraud, partisanship, and deference to special interests. The Democrats see this as a prelude to better service to the American public through improved entitlement programs and other initiatives, while the Republicans champion greater government efficiency as the path to fewer government services and benefits, and less regulation of business and industry.

Obama has been outspoken and specific about his support of the protection and enforcement of individual liberties, most especially personal privacy; free speech; freedom from discrimination and harassment; religious freedom balanced by secular governance; just and humane treatment in criminal matters; autonomous reproductive decisions; and the right to bear arms within reasonable limits to avoid the incidence and increase of gun-related crime. McCain approves limits on personal privacy through government surveillance at will, sees benefits in far less separation of church and state, justifies torture, opposes reproductive freedom, and believes the right to bear arms should be unfettered.

Both Obama and McCain call for fair taxation. Obama wants to decrease taxes for the vast majority of people, increase taxes on the wealthiest 5% and on American corporations, especially those that have benefitted from outsourcing and downsizing. McCain believes in as little taxation of any kind as possible and is particularly concerned about business being burdened with taxes that they claim will hinder their growth, profitability, and ability to provide jobs for Americans.

Obama advocates an energy policy that is active, innovative, impartial, cooperative, and focused on achieving energy independence, options, and fair prices through the development of alternative energy sources. He believes energy needs must be balanced with environmental concerns. He accepts the scientific reality of global climate change and its damaging impact. McCain proposes an energy policy that focuses on the development of new oil resources throughout the US, including the environmentally controversial drilling in the arctic. Cheaper gas prices a.s.a.p. is a key goal. He remains skeptical about the cause and scope of global warming.

Obama wants to craft an economic policy that also is active, innovative, impartial, and cooperative, focused on expanding business and industry, and both increasing and ensuring full and fair employment. He supports unions and collective bargaining. McCain advocates an economic policy that relies on the expertise of American business and the wisdom of the free market. He thinks it is necessary and reasonable for businesses to outsource many of their functions to other countries where labor is cheaper than here. He believes protecting business and banks is the best way to revitalize economic growth and that unions are a hindrance to this end. He still advocates the classic "Trickle Down" theory.

Obama wants to undertake a detailed reexamination and revamp of major government policies, particularly those related to poverty, immigration, national security, and foreign affairs, in order to come up with creative new initiatives and fair solutions. McCain believes that cutting government costs and responsibilities, as well as enforcing existing prohibitions, is largely sufficient to address these national problems.

Obama proposes comprehensive, government-funded health care – physical, mental, dental, elder/special needs, experimental, catastrophic, long-term and hospice. McCain calls this socialized medicine and advocates maintaining the privately-owned, profit-oriented health care industry while providing modest tax cuts to better enable Americans to provide their own health insurance and treatment.

Obama believes in practical access to life-long quality education and training, and proposes a fair exchange of government funding of higher education for a stint of public service. McCain believes in personal initiative substantial enough to warrant privately-funded scholarships, and endorses vouchers for K-12 education rather than a major investment in the overhaul of public education.

Obama guarantees the sanctity, protection, and improvement of Social Security. The same goes for Medicare and Medicaid, unless and until such time as new health care policies and programs render them obsolete. McCain makes no such promises.

Barack Obama’s running mate has decades of leadership, legislative, and executive decision-making experience, a thorough understanding of domestic and foreign policy, and a proven track record of working effectively with disparate constituencies. John McCain’s running mate does not.

Barack Obama is not a Muslim. He and John McCain are both practicing Christians.

Bone up. There will be a test in November.

American Vampires

For the past few days, I’ve been ponder-ing three subjects: the advent of Repub-lican Vice Presiden-tial nominee Sarah Palin; today being the seventh anniversary of the World Trade Center attack; and the clever new HBO series True Blood, based on the wonderful Dead Until Dark, the first book in the Southern Vampire Series by Charlaine Harris. They all seemed connected, but I couldn’t quite figure out how. Then yesterday, within a few hours of each other, while searching for other images I found the picture of Dubya that illustrates this post (apparently it’s available on T-shirts), and a friend sent me an article about the status of the 2008 campaign by Camille Paglia entitled “Fresh Blood for the Vampire” (available on Salon), and it suddenly came together.

Vampires are currently as popular as Beanie Babies were in the 90s, in fact, there’s a flourishing vampire subculture. We’re not just talking about youthful, cartoon Goth, we’re talking about mostly normal looking adults with an active vampire obsession. It seems that not since the magnificent vampire books by Anne Rice took the nation by the throat 20 years ago has America had such a love affair with the sexy, captivating, undead (or, as the advocates of vampire rights in True Blood call them, “life-challenged Americans” who just want to “come out of the coffin” and be part of mainstream society). There are numerous other offerings in vampire fiction, including a children’s series; several major non-fiction tomes on vampire history; vampire discos, social clubs and dating services; vampire dentistry for those who elect to go through life with genuine fangs; and of course, a nest of vampire Web sites.

Why is this phenomenon happening here and now? I think it’s because (at least in part) George Bush has been draining the lifeblood out of this country for the past eight years, and the horror that began with the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC in 2001 and continued with the double wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has left us ravaged, bereaved, and in desperate need of both comfort and distraction. Real monsters – like Bush, McCain and Vampira Palin – are too difficult to cope with for a lot of people, especially when they’ve lost loved ones or homes or jobs, or are just astutely aware that many of the essential tenets of our democracy have been eroded into dust. Add to that a large dose of inflation/ recession, killer weather, impossible gas, fuel and food prices, the wholesale aging of a once-vibrant generation, multiple instances of toxic vegetables, and the mind-numbing mediocrity of reality television and, well, it’s enough to make anyone want to engage in an exotic fantasy.

Paglia, who is enthusiastic in her support for Obama, says in “Fresh Blood For the Vampire” (she sees the aged, unvanquished McCain as the vampire): “In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.” I love the outspoken, contrary, fresh-thinking Camille Paglia, but I think her appreciation of Palin and her conviction that America could survive Palin’s ascension to power should it come to that, is dangerously misplaced.

Palin reminds me of a couple of demonic “p.r. gals” I worked for briefly, full of cozy smiles for clients and press, but shockingly hateful, wildly demanding and completely clueless with their staff. In a Palin story that has just surfaced, a waitress in Alaska reports that she served lunch to the Governor and some of her cronies the day after Obama unofficially clinched the nomination and heard her exclaim: “So, Sambo beat the bitch!” That, and everything else about her, gives me…pause.

Today, as we once again cast our eyes on Lower Manhattan and remember that day not so long ago when nearly 3,000 people were incinerated and we as a nation descended into a quagmire of heartbroken fear, it’s important that we remember that we cannot resurrect the dead, nor should we try. And we dare not once again put our future in the hands of those who would drain the life out of our nation with their ignorance, arrogance, greed, conceit and religiosity. There isn’t enough garlic to go around.

Obama Kids

If you read Barack Obama’s website, you’ll note that there are frequent refer- ences to “The Movement.” For Obama’s earliest supporters, many of them in their teens, 20s and 30s, their involvement to date has not been in a political campaign, but in a social movement for progressive change; Obama is not their candidate so much as their hero. So it was not surprising to read the article in today’s New York Times, “Political Realities May Pose a Test to Obama’s Appeal to Young Voters,” which explains that some of these young folks felt “marginalized” in Denver and, in general, are feeling uncomfortable about their hero’s behaving like a politician. “We understand the politics of compromise…,” says 19-year-old Ian Bowman-Henderson, “…but we picked him because we didn’t want the same kind of politics – that’s what set him apart.”

Just the other night, I was talking to a friend about the Democratic Convention, and I said that I was happy for these kids that they had a movement to be part of, recalling how connected and productive and grown-up I felt as part of the movements of the 60s and 70s. But as I learned when I volunteered for the McCarthy for President campaign, the rules change once you start working the big room, the White House. That’s just how it is. Working within the system means just that.

I sincerely believe three things: (1) Obama is a politician who is also a genuine leader, one of the first we’ve had in a long time; (2) Obama indeed wants to bring a fresh approach to American governance, but he has to get elected first; (3) Obama cannot win without the efforts of his young, brave army for change. He needs his Movement to hang in with him in order to make it. Let me say that again: Obama cannot win without the efforts of his young, brave army for change. He needs his Movement to hang in with him in order to make it.

If you’re serious about wanting to effect meaningful change in this country, you cannot afford to be impatient or over-sensitive or self-involved, let alone petulant. Being truly connected, productive and grown-up requires drawing strength from within yourself and from each other, as well as the object of your adoration. And you have to trust your leader to know what’s necessary as well as what’s good, and stick with him for the entire process.

It’s much easier, much less frustrating, to not care and to not be involved in making change. It’s hard work and the fun part is small – but the larger, ultimate victory can be thrilling. Can you imagine how differently the country might have developed if, in the wake of the King and Kennedy assassinations in 1968, people had engaged in unprecedented mass expressions of non-violence and commitment to peaceful change, instead of rioting or walking away, and letting McGovern lose to Nixon?

You must register everyone you can, convince the unconvinced and undecided, rouse the politically lethargic and soothe the politically enraged. You must remember that the disciplined, committed conservatives will be working very hard to defeat you. Nothing can change, or be repaired, or be achieved, unless Obama gets elected first. Mahatma Gandhi told his followers, “Even if what you do is of little significance, it is of vital importance that you do it.” Play whatever part you can, no matter how small. Don’t lose heart, don’t lose sight, don’t let go. The weary veterans of past campaigns are depending on you.

Savoring the Moment

This is a picture of my parents, an inter- racial couple who were married for over 45 years. These lifelong Democrats did not live to see an African-American accept their party’s nomination for President, or to vote for him this coming November. They were great fans of the Clintons and I often wondered during the primary epoch who they would have been rooting for leading up to the convention, and if they would have been in agreement on their choices. But I have no doubt that after hearing Obama’s acceptance speech, they would have answered the call for Democratic unity and gotten behind Barack. They would have enjoyed this convention, and been deeply moved by the historic milestone of the first black candidate of a major party officially launching his full campaign on the 45th anniversary of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. And they’d have gotten a special kick out of the fact that Obama is actually biracial, just like their own sole offspring. We shared many conventions together. I’ve missed my folks a lot this week.

I’m securely on board the change train. Obama spoke very well, talked very straight, and said the things that needed saying. I liked the way he took John McCain head on without being insulting or mean; that he warned against the Republicans’ tendency to “make a big campaign about small things”; that he referred unflinchingly to long-contentious hot-button issues: abortion, gun control and gay rights, among them, and called for sensible compromise in an imaginative approach that is undeniably new in American politics. He cited more than two dozen specifics of his strategy for change and, overall, succeeded in looking forceful and presidential.

I’ve absorbed just a little of the Republican commentary on the Democratic convention and have been absolutely stunned by their nastiness, outright lies, deliberate misinterpretations, and playing all the other cards of obfuscation and fear in the political deck. I imagine that John McCain watched Barack Obama’s acceptance and went into a swoon of fury and surprise; what else could explain his selection of a conservative hockey-mom for vice president? I think Obama will make chopped meat out of him in the debates, and that, much like Humphrey Bogart as the uber-paranoid Capt. Queeg in The Caine Mutiny, McCain will unintentionally show his anger and lack of qualification and be felled by them.

Meanwhile, Obama has to get elected, which I’m now more hopeful will happen, thanks to the army of 85,000 campaign workers who were energized by the convention and its history-making candidate. Peggy Noonan, the brilliant political writer with seriously wrong-headed views, said in today’s Wall Street Journal that “Mr. Obama left a lot of space for Mr. McCain to play the happy warrior next week. He left the Republicans a big opportunity to wield against him, in contrast [to Obama’s seriousness], humor, and wit, and even something approximating joy.” Joy? If the Republicans are joyful, all that feeling reflects is the contentment and sheltered reality of the nation’s upper crust. That any working and middle class persons connect with those people never ceases to amaze me.

I’m giving myself the privilege of ignoring McCain and his minions for the weekend, so I can just enjoy the extraordinary fact that an African-American with a world-class mind and an innovative biracial understanding of polarizing issues is running for President of the United States. My parents would have wanted it that way.

The Audacity of Defiance

After I watched the third night of the Democratic Convention, I saw the film The Defiant Ones, Stanley Kramer’s 1958 classic tale of racism and redemption starring Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis. For those of you under 50 or just not a fan of old movies: The Defiant Ones tells the story of two prisoners escaped from a chain gang, one black, one white, neither enamored of the other, forced to work together to survive because they’re chained together. Animosity gives way to cooperation, but they are ultimately overwhelmed by the powers that be, and betrayed by someone who could have been an ally but is corrupted by a desperate need to escape her circumstances, too. In the end, by the time the men are caught, they’re unchained, but united by friendship. It occurred to me that the movie could be viewed as an interesting and disturbing metaphor for the 2008 election.

Those who believe that racial prejudice and social division in America – still the unconfronted elephant in the room of this campaign – have been largely overcome by law and time, are (a) mistaken and (b) not understanding the true process of unity. Whites and non-whites will never band together because of social dictates to do so, but rather, because everyone will finally recognize that our mutual survival depends on our ability to cooperate. And our ability to cooperate will inevitably arise out of our capacity for dealing with confrontation, then rising above it. Both our unspoken woundedness and our politeness are keeping us apart.

I’ve long believed that our country would never unite unless there was some massive calamity, like California breaking off and floating out to sea, or we were visited by aliens from another world; not until we were faced with the little green men would we be able to accept the black, white, brown, yellow and red of our shared humanity. The task ahead for the Obama/Biden team is to effectively convince White America that the Iraq War and the national debt are a massive calamity and we’ve already been visited by aliens: the Bush Administration and its neo-con devotees who live in a rarified other world and are green with greed and self-interest.

During his acceptance speech tonight, I hope Barack Obama can find a compelling and appealing way to explain that we are indeed chained together by recession, inflation, oil-dependency, corporate outsourcing, the cost of war mongering, the burden of debt and the stress of insecurity. I hope he’ll say that if we unite to survive, we can overcome the powers that be before they destroy us. I hope that argument can convince enough white people to vote for a black man. Otherwise, it’s back to the chain gang for us all.

Portrait of a Lady

The much-anticipated speech by Michelle Obama on the first night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention was preceded by a folksy speech by her brother and a biographical film produced by Ken Burns and narrated by her mother. It all left me feeling good, but very subdued. She looked lovely in a light green dress against the stage’s blue background (enough color differential to stand out but not look too bold...) with a broad expanse of décolletage (not revealing, just enough to subliminally say I’m Open...).

She spoke beautifully and her accomplishments, detailed in the film, were undeniably impressive. So I found it discomfitting that she had to do what she was there to do: make herself and her husband seem less scary to White America. The reason she had to do this was, of course, never acknowledged, let alone addressed: the fact that there are millions of Americans who have had no first-hand experience of middle-class blacks – and that’s really what they’re revealing when they say they don’t yet know who Obama is.

White society has been programmed by pop culture and the news media to think that the black underclass and its hip-hop/pimps & hos ethos are what define African-American perspective and experience. They don’t understand that Michelle Obama’s deliberately Mom-and-apple-pie performance was born not of political artifice, but of the genuine and demanding values of the black middle-class, which is historically rooted in church, family, community, education, and a stringent work ethic. As a group, they are very private, proper, focused, and firmly cognizant of the fact that to be black and successful in America still requires that one be ten times better (more disciplined, more proficient, more accomplished) than the white competition. And it’s always competitive, always, and exhausting, because you can never let your guard down.

Understanding this demographic profile helps explain why the Obamas can seem aloof and elite, a little stiff, a little humorless, somehow insincere. A few years ago, I worked closely with a middle-aged black woman who was the president of a long-established non-profit organization. She confided to me that, as was once expressed by writer Toni Morrison, she does not entirely trust white people. She has many valued white colleagues and good white friends, but there is a part of her that is always waiting for the other shoe to drop. If Mrs. Obama privately feels much the same, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised, nor could I fault her.

The best part of Michelle Obama’s appearance was the very fact of it. You could see the pride in the expressions on black faces throughout the hall, young and old alike. Here was this poised, pretty, black woman, a successful lawyer, a loving wife, a devoted mother, a loyal daughter, standing before them preparing to be First Lady. First Lady! It was a triumph a long time comin’. But this is politically correct 2008 and we’re not allowed to use the “R” word, so nobody could give voice to the miracle.

Who would have thought that when we finally had a black presidential candidate we’d have to pretend not to notice? Race, its mysteries and its miseries in our divided America, will continue to rear its pointed little head as the campaign continues. I wish this convention could crack it open, like a piñata filled with spiders and stars.

Conventional Wisdom

In past presidential election years, I’ve always looked forward to the conventions. The Republicans consistently offer constructive aggravation: enough bullshit, self-righteousness, heartlessness, cluelessness and corn to inspire sputtering rage and get my heart racing. Conservatives are my cardio. I’m confident I’ll get my work-out again this year.

The Democrats are a dramatic comedy, it’s always a mixed emotional bag with them. They engage me as I look at the delegates who, despite all their silly campaign “flair,” radiate with a fair amount of intelligence/literacy, a refreshing quantity of diversity, and a few gratifying moments of grace. I’m happy to see the old warriors and the new hopefuls and the treasured icons. I still remember with teary fondness JFK Jr.’s appearance at the 1988 Democratic Convention: John-John, the toddler who saluted his slain father’s coffin, all grown up into a smart, dashing young man not yet a media rock star. And I remember the pride and hope and exhilaration I felt hearing Barack Obama speak for the first time at the 2004 Convention. A friend called me right after and said “We’ve just heard the first black President of the United States.” A lot of blood and politics under the bridge since then.

This year, I feel like I’m about to tune in to the finals of American Idol – only in this case, the eventual outcome really matters. There were times over the past 18 months that I thought we’d never get here and it’s still three more months to Election Day. So it’s essential that the Democrats put on a really good show, since it seems that’s what politics is in 21st century America, where the cashiers at fast-food restaurants press register keys with pictures of food instead of numbers. And they shouldn’t worry that the TV ratings for the Convention won’t come anywhere near those of the actual American Idol (neither may the subsequent votes), it must still be spectacular. It has to have the power to wash away the heavy crusts of cynicism, bitterness, indifference and distrust that coat so many Americans. Like George Burns said when they asked him what was the secret to great acting, “The thing about acting is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you got it made.”

We need some creative liberal artifice to combat complacent affluence, war mongering, profiteering and oppression. The conservatives cry “Class warfare!” like it’s a bad thing, but we are in the midst of a most desperate class war and the poor, working class and middle class are losing, big time. The Democratic Convention must be a splendid kick-off to the battle royal ahead.

The mainstream media has done and is doing a piss-poor job of covering this campaign with any real measure of gravitas and humor, intelligence, and insight. I hope they shape up for the Convention and the remainder of the campaign – but I also hope I win the lottery; I’m not getting my hopes up. But hope springs eternal.

This is some of what I’m not hearing anyone say:

Because nobody wants to discuss race forthrightly and intelligently, no one has explained that Barack Obama may occupy the social category of African-American, but he is inherently biracial; I’m biracial and I know how this works. He is, by every fiber of his being, a conciliator. He has not been equivocating about his views and positions, he has been seeking common ground with the opposition. George Bush has no concept of the Loyal Opposition. Have his ignorance and arrogance made everyone forget what negotiation and compromise look like? Is our microwave impatience so all consuming that we don’t understand you can’t effect significant change quickly, or all at once, or before you get into power? Obama is not a revolutionary, he’s a change agent, there’s a difference.

Joe Biden may in some ways be the epitome of traditional Washington, but he’s also a decent guy with working/middle class sensibilities who is well-known, well-respected, and knows how the system works. Since dismantling the system before you have something concrete and effective to replace it with is, to say the least, counter-productive, it’s important to have a senior associate who’s got your back. Obama and Biden don’t make a good show-biz team and that’s unfortunate; that’s what Barack/Hillary would have been. But they make a good leadership team. Do we remember leadership?

This country is in astonishingly serious trouble and four more years of Bush-style governance could destroy us. Obama/Biden are not a panacea, but they are a viable alternative to genuine disaster. We should try not to make the Ancient Mayan prediction of the end of the world in 2012 a self-fulfilled prophecy.

I’m polishing up my non-flat, non-high-definition, TV screen. I have to remember to buy popcorn.